Marquet Bryant and Robert B. Hagood v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “[S]ignificantly, in this case we are able to discern the factual bases for the jury’s verdicts from the verdicts themselves, without engaging in speculation about the jury’s thought process.”
• “[S]ignificantly, in this case we are able to discern the factual bases for the jury’s verdicts from the verdicts themselves, without engaging in speculation about the jury’s thought process.”
• “[O]ur inquiry focuses on the jury’s perception of the evidence presented at trial. It does not focus on the defendant’s choice of actions at the time of the alleged crime.”
• “[O]ur inquiry focuses on the jury’s perception of the evidence presented at trial. It does not focus on the defendant’s choice of actions at the time of the alleged crime.”
• “[T]he armed appellant attempted, but did not successfully complete, the crime of burglary.”
• “From this evidence of two confrontations and the government’s characterization during closing arguments of appellants’ actions as ‘two burglaries’ and ‘two shootings,’ the jury could reasonably have perceived two factually distinct burglaries and assaults.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).